Change Details

This is somewhat partial. Overview: * Latencies are good {F7354935} * All of these remaining inconsistencies //appear// to be noise/noisy/flaky. * NumMicroOps are somewhat good {F7354949} * Most of the remaining inconsistencies are from `Ld` / `Ld_ReadAfterLd` classes * Actual unit occupation (pipes, `ResourceCycles`) are undiscovered lands, i did not really look there. They are basically verbatum copy from `btver2` * Many `InstRW`. And there are still inconsistencies left... What's not here: * llvm-mca test coverage. I understand how to not just add the coverage here, but actually show a diff, but i did not look there yet. * benchmarks. I'd say it's too soon for any measurements. To be noted: I think this is the first new schedule profile produced with the new next-gen tools like llvm-exegesis! llvm-exegesis details: {F7354931} {F7354935} {F7354950} {F7354952} {F7354949}

This is somewhat partial. Overview: * Latencies are good {F7367557} * All of these remaining inconsistencies //appear// to be noise/noisy/flaky. * NumMicroOps are somewhat good {F7367559} * Most of the remaining inconsistencies are from `Ld` / `Ld_ReadAfterLd` classes * Actual unit occupation (pipes, `ResourceCycles`) are undiscovered lands, i did not really look there. They are basically verbatum copy from `btver2` * Many `InstRW`. And there are still inconsistencies left... What's not here: * llvm-mca test coverage. I understand how to not just add the coverage here, but actually show a diff, but i did not look there yet. * benchmarks. I'd say it's too soon for any measurements. To be noted: I think this is the first new schedule profile produced with the new next-gen tools like llvm-exegesis! llvm-exegesis details: {F7354931} {F7367557} {F7354950} {F7354952} {F7367559}

This is somewhat partial. Overview: * Latencies are good {F7354935}67557} * All of these remaining inconsistencies //appear// to be noise/noisy/flaky. * NumMicroOps are somewhat good {F7354949}67559} * Most of the remaining inconsistencies are from `Ld` / `Ld_ReadAfterLd` classes * Actual unit occupation (pipes, `ResourceCycles`) are undiscovered lands, i did not really look there. They are basically verbatum copy from `btver2` * Many `InstRW`. And there are still inconsistencies left... What's not here: * llvm-mca test coverage. I understand how to not just add the coverage here, but actually show a diff, but i did not look there yet. * benchmarks. I'd say it's too soon for any measurements. To be noted: I think this is the first new schedule profile produced with the new next-gen tools like llvm-exegesis! llvm-exegesis details: {F7354931} {F7354935}67557} {F7354950} {F7354952} {F7354949}67559}